Battling topography: Brywaeo!

[Caenwyr]

Alright. Managed to finalise the detailing of the terrain. I then used this to create a digital elevation model, which I pulled through Wilbur. It was as I feared: Wilbur is incapable (or at least with the settings I chose) to get rid of the steps and at the same time keep the level of detail I provided. So I went for a hybrid version instead: I kept my handmade terrain, but used the Wilburred version to bring some shading to the mix. And I think I kinda managed to get it working!

### Latest WIP ###
Brywaeo (10).jpg

Of course, you guys are the jury here, so let me know what you think!

[waldronate]

If you haven't seen it, take a look at https://cartographersguild.com/showt...t=33087&page=2 because it was a similar sort of process that started with contours and I abused mbartelsm's map using Wilbur. There is also a bonus technique for generating the sort of uniformly-eroded and deeply-incised areas typical of the European Alps. These mountainous patches can synthesized in any desired shape and then used as a bump map in Photoshop for more texture (or lightly blended onto existing mountain areas).

Wilbur's erosion tools are generally lossy, so you're going to see things get a bit smaller (that is, areas at a particular altitude are going to get narrower). Sometimes, using an exponential adjustment with a value just below 1 (around 0.9) can bring things back up to close to the initially-specified values without too much loss of volume.

[Caenwyr]

If you haven't seen it, take a look at https://cartographersguild.com/showt...t=33087&page=2 because it was a similar sort of process that started with contours and I abused mbartelsm's map using Wilbur. There is also a bonus technique for generating the sort of uniformly-eroded and deeply-incised areas typical of the European Alps. These mountainous patches can synthesized in any desired shape and then used as a bump map in Photoshop for more texture (or lightly blended onto existing mountain areas).

Wilbur's erosion tools are generally lossy, so you're going to see things get a bit smaller (that is, areas at a particular altitude are going to get narrower). Sometimes, using an exponential adjustment with a value just below 1 (around 0.9) can bring things back up to close to the initially-specified values without too much loss of volume.

Once again you come to the rescue! Thanks a lot for that, Waldronate, will definitely have to try this one out. I'm super happy you posted your entire process in great detail - just playing around resulted in lots of hair pulling and a disappointing amount of actual success .

[Caenwyr]

Okay. I tried the steps you suggested in that other thread, and they worked wonders! However, even though it does look more "natural", I don't feel it has the same level of detail I created manually. Or rather, the same dynamic feeling, if that means anything. So I'm at a loss here: which version is better? Purely aesthetically, I kinda like the old version better... but maybe that's because I messed something up

A few versions:

Brywaeo (11b).jpg Brywaeo (11c).jpg Brywaeo (11d).jpg

FYI, this is the BUMP map behind it all:
BUMP.jpg

[ThomasR]

My only nitpick would be the coastline that feels out of place but the rest is glorious !

[Josiah VE]

Man, that bumpmap is epic! Really nice work on the whole thing.

[Azélor]

Without hesitation I prefer the older version.
The new one has too much noise in it. It doesn't look natural.

[kacey]

I have to agree with Azelor, though the other three images and the bump map look pretty cool I think this topographic style is better suited to a more subtle relief if any at all. I actually really enjoy the original topographic map without any relief and I think I'm going to make one myself. Great job all around though, I've been learning allot from you're projects lately... Keep it up.

[waldronate]

Making a map is about including the things that are important to the purpose of the map and eliminating the things that aren't important. As the human, you know what's important and can emphasize it. Wilbur doesn't know about much of anything except pixels and adding/subtracting values to those pixels based on values of those pixels and the surrounding ones. Things that we're describing as "rivers" are purely emergent phenomena. Amusingly, the "incise flow" and "precipiton erosion" features have very little to do with real-world activities: they were the simplest things that I could code up that would get something that looked plausible.

It looks like you're putting too much incise flow into your map and not enough noise before the basin fill. I say this because your rivers are running straight down the mountain slopes, which gets you rivers that look like bottlebrushes. This effect can also be caused by too much precipiton erosion as well, because that feature moves altitude directly downhill.

A nice finishing touch to get reduce the "too much noise" problem is to run the Filter>>Morphological>>Erode filter with a value of 1 right before outputting your image. This process will remove all of the single-pixel freestanding spires and reduce the overall roughness.

And, technically, that gray map is a light map rather than a bump map (the bump map looks like a height map). I expect that you lighted the bump map

[Caenwyr]

My only nitpick would be the coastline that feels out of place but the rest is glorious !

Heh, well, I'm afraid I'm gonna keep it, Thomas! I'm doing this whole exercise by trying to stay as close as possible to that Schotland map I linked to in my first post. It's a style I really like and one I would like to learn doing myself (in my own stumbling way). So the coastline is gonna stay... But it will be added to with other map elements that will help it blend in a little better. Like the rivers!

Man, that bumpmap is epic! Really nice work on the whole thing.

I do like it too! But as it stands now, nice as it is, I'm probably not gonna use it. That grey map is taking me too far away from the style I was going for, so I decided to go back to the hand drawn contour lines and work from there.

Without hesitation I prefer the older version.
The new one has too much noise in it. It doesn't look natural.

Well! I was happy when I read this last night, Azelor, because I totally agree. It's true, the light map looks pretty neat, but it just doesn't exude the feeling I was going for. Is that an expression? Is that English at all? Meh, you get my meaning.

I have to agree with Azelor, though the other three images and the bump map look pretty cool I think this topographic style is better suited to a more subtle relief if any at all. I actually really enjoy the original topographic map without any relief and I think I'm going to make one myself. Great job all around though, I've been learning allot from you're projects lately... Keep it up.

Stealing with your eyes - that's how I do it too ! I'm glad my stumbling in the dark is helping you out somehow kacey, and I'm really curious to see where your map is gonna go!

Making a map is about including the things that are important to the purpose of the map and eliminating the things that aren't important. As the human, you know what's important and can emphasize it. Wilbur doesn't know about much of anything except pixels and adding/subtracting values to those pixels based on values of those pixels and the surrounding ones. Things that we're describing as "rivers" are purely emergent phenomena. Amusingly, the "incise flow" and "precipiton erosion" features have very little to do with real-world activities: they were the simplest things that I could code up that would get something that looked plausible.

It looks like you're putting too much incise flow into your map and not enough noise before the basin fill. I say this because your rivers are running straight down the mountain slopes, which gets you rivers that look like bottlebrushes. This effect can also be caused by too much precipiton erosion as well, because that feature moves altitude directly downhill.

A nice finishing touch to get reduce the "too much noise" problem is to run the Filter>>Morphological>>Erode filter with a value of 1 right before outputting your image. This process will remove all of the single-pixel freestanding spires and reduce the overall roughness.

Thanks man, this goes to show (again) how much of a caveman I am when it comes to Wilbur. It's just a mess of hitting buttons and waiting for results that never really are what I expected when hitting the buttons. Like I said above, it seems Wilbur has a steeper learning curve to it than I thought, despite my little taming exercise with my previous map (which turned out a lot better thanks to your help!). I'm probably gonna leave it as it is for now, and use my "handiwork" contour lines instead. Not JUST because they seem to fit the style I'm going for a little better, but also because, if I'm really gonna use Wilbur for another one of my maps, I'm gonna have to learn a lot about the ins and outs of it first. Your continued assistance is a great help to me, but some day I should be able to take the training wheels off, right?

And, technically, that gray map is a light map rather than a bump map (the bump map looks like a height map). I expect that you lighted the bump map

Oh yeah, heh, thanks for pointing that out! I should have known that, was just being lazy there. Bump maps are those greyscale height thingies, light maps are what you get when you throw a bunch of light at it. Got it!